IMO, the best way to approach these seemingly-outlandish stories is that they are true, even if they are not precisely fact.

Ahh, and that's where the cherry picking starts.. When a book of "truth" has outladish stories it can be said in fair argument that anything in the book can be considered to be an outlandish story.. Such as Jesus's resurrection. Or the existence of a Deity. Funny how that works. And then off to the self-invented interpretations of context of anything in the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of some 80 books, written over the course of 2000 years by dozens of different people in many different genres. To paint with such a broad brush is the height of ignorance.

You should learn about the things you're debating beforehand so you don't say silly things in the future.

Actually we can because the Bible is supposed to be GOD's letter to humanity.. Perhaps you might admit that it wasn't divinely written?? If so, you have a problem sir... And I've even seen Christians add words, or try to change to meaning of scripture to mean something else more often than I can count. Like I said, if you took all the Christians in the world and compiled all there interpretations of the scripture, it would be completely and utterly incoherent. Everyone seems to have their own self-invented context. Especially when going around professing the will of a Deity that doesn't speak for itself. A perfect example is when theists deflect from Jesus comments about tossing Mountains into the sea ect.. They start self-inventing their own interpretations, add words to, or intentionally don't follow the literal context in which it were written.

It's a good thing Orthodoxy doesn't base itself off the innerancy of the Bible. Furthermore why would we care about other interpretations by all Christians? Many of them condone heresies, without even knowing it. The only sole authority to interpret the Holy Scriptures is the one who gave birth to them, The Church.

Really.. I didn't realize the "Church" had any real authority.. You can also feel free to validate and substantiate that anything would be considered Heresies. Especially when one claims their GOD to be Omniscient. So you think your version of Christianity is truth vs others? Care to validate that? Perhaps have GOD himself to speak for himself and profess his own will? And what makes you think I trust the Church? The Church doesn't have any authority what-so-ever.

I'm going to be very basic and superficial about this. If any other board member wants to expand or correct me, please by all means.

There are a few things you would have to suppose before I actually validate the authority of the Church, namely the Orthodox Church.

So you must first suppose that Jesus Christ is the God-incarnate. Fully man and fully God. He is the direct image of the unoriginate Father.

Also you must also suppose that Jesus Christ established just one Church. And in this Church he gave authority to the Apostles and passed down the tradition of the Church to their discsiples, so on and so forth. Established a line of succession with bishops, priests and deacons.

Once you suppose this then we can move forward, and I think it's a fair supposition no?

So this one Church had the authority for example using what are known as Ecumenical Councils, to distinguish what is heresy and from what is tradition. But also establishing key doctrines of the Christian belief. 325AD the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea was formed and established a creed of what the Church believed. You can read this creed here: http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/creed It also discussed Arianism, which was deemed as a heresy by this Council.

Now as you are probably well aware of there were gnostic gospels and writings around that claimed to be written by the apostles themselves, like the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary Magdelene, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.

However the Bible wasn't canonically formed until 397AD at the Council of Carthage. So if the Bible wasn't formed until that late, what in the world did Christians believe and accept? By Holy Tradition, the faith that was passed down by the Apostles. So with this Tradition it selected which documents that were written by the Apostles or what was accepted by the Church. So by the Church can it only properly interpret the Bible because it gave birth to it.

You still following me?

But why then, like you say, people don't hold the Church to authority? Well there were certain events and people in history that went above the Church's authority on some of its dogma and doctrine. I'm not going to give you a history lesson on this because it is pretty lengthy and my own knowledge is vague at best. But keeping this in mind led to what we would classify the Great Schism of 1054AD. Where the Roman Patriachate at the time (there were 5 in total) schismed away for various reasons, for example adding what is called the filioque clause to a 700 year old Nicene Creed. So when this Patriachate schismed he established what we know as Roman Catholicsm, and in turn that Patriachate became the Pope. Now this is a very superficial high overview of what happened during this time, granted I could go much more in depth but I don't want to spend too much time here. However it must be known what lead to this more or less is people issued certain doctrines that went above the actual authority of the Church. And because of going against that authoirty, it was only a matter of time until certain people started questioning if Christ actually existed, what was He like, etc etc.

Those original 4 Patriachates (One in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople) though that remained in communion? Became the Orthodox Church which claims it is the original Church Christ established. By the canons of the Church, the tradition and its history, it is qualified to make this claim. It traces its lineage all the way back to the Apostles. Has professed the same faith for 2000 years. Granted I haven't talked about Oriental Orthodox or Old Calendarists, but I was to be as basic as I can about this so we are on the same page. Now on the Bible, the early Church used a Greek version of the OT called the Septuagint, which was a Jewish translation that was more or less completed in 145 BCE. There were quite a number of changes made into the Septuagint which reflected certain prophecies, etc. It has alot more books than what is found in the majority of Protestant Bibles and has books that Roman Catholics do not use either. Furthermore if the Orthodox Church gave birth to the Bible, which it claims, should it not have the authority on its interpretation?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I don't suppose it.. Perhaps your Church can validate that for us because it seems to do a lot of "supposing". I even gave you and the Church a Jesus honesty test and that didn't bare any fruit either. So lets suppose man is professing the will of a deity vs a deity professing it's own will. So do you play the wager game? I see all assertions of heresy ect and yet no validation of such.. Especially when you claim a GOD to be Omniscient.. Heresy at that point would be impossible anyways So before you go about claiming heresy, or that people like gays are abominations ect..Take some time to critically think about your positions. Perhaps you can have your GOD come before man and simply just say "hey, this is how it works kids". Oh yeah, the claim that "GOD" chooses not to interfere right? Perhaps you could validate that as well? Your Church only seems to have Authority over assumptions. And when it comes down to it, giving if your GOD existed, the Church would hold no authority what-so-ever. Organized religions these days are a multi-billion dollar industry. The profiteering off ignorance. Regardless, you are in no position to be speaking for something you can't even show to exist. The horses mouth is the only mouth that matters in this discussion.

I don't suppose it.. Perhaps your Church can validate that for us because it seems to do a lot of "supposing". I even gave you and the Church a Jesus honesty test and that didn't bare any fruit either. So lets suppose man is professing the will of a deity vs a deity professing it's own will. So do you play the wager game? I see all assertions of heresy ect and yet no validation of such.. Especially when you claim a GOD to be Omniscient.. Heresy at that point would be impossible anyways So before you go about claiming heresy, or that people like gays are abominations ect..Take some time to critically think about your positions. Perhaps you can have your GOD come before man and simply just say "hey, this is how it works kids". Oh yeah, the claim that "GOD" chooses not to interfere right? Perhaps you could validate that as well? Your Church only seems to have Authority over assumptions. And when it comes down to it, giving if your GOD existed, the Church would hold no authority what-so-ever. Organized religions these days are a multi-billion dollar industry. The profiteering off ignorance. Regardless, you are in no position to be speaking for something you can't even show to exist. The horses mouth is the only mouth that matters in this discussion.

One time I bit this guy in the nose and he became a tulip. How many shoulders do you have?

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

The irony. Moving forward, that is not how it works. Real truth is true whether we can "validate" it or not. I think a more accurate way to view it would be to state that we are unable to definitively know if something is "real truth" UNLESS we can validate it. In which case, I think we would agree. However, we then have to ask ourselves the perplexing question of as to what constitutes sufficient validation.

Quote

Assumptions can but rarely lead to truth.

Even more irony. That is the same thing you are doing right now. Moving on, you are falsely assuming that the authors in question were just making baseless assumptions.

Quote

Spiritual truth is what you seek in the philosophy of your belief, but even then without validation actual truth is never verified, or substantiated.

>assuming it is not validated

Quote

Errors in the Bible point to inability to establish truth. It's pretty much a mess.

Only if you interpret it without the proper lenses of the Church

Quote

It's a matter of what truth of philosophy you want to gain from it or see in it.

Nope. It's a matter of submitting to the traditions we were taught via word and epistle from the Apostles which has further been expanded upon, enlightened and explained by God-inspired Church Fathers and theologians through the ages--whether we want to see it or not. Understanding truth in Orthodoxy is more so a matter of submission and humility than simply seeing what we want.

Quote

I never suggested these discrepancies were swept under the rug. The discrepancies I'm describing are the superficial things, like historical and scientific claims, and inner contradictions in the Scriptures.

Which are not a problem to us because we are not Sola Scriptura literalist Protestants

Quote

Those aren't superficial.. Especially when one of the major contradictions (especially in the New Testament) is Unconditional Love while in the bible GOD himself commits Genocide or hypocrisy of the 10 commandments.

A literalist now are we? How many times do I have to tell you that this is not literalist Protestants? Don't just try to 'lump' all Christianity together because your only exposure to it has been from your backwards Sola Scriptura Bible literalist background. If you are going to debate us, learn about us first. I wouldn't go into a debate with an atheist using arguments against Hinduism, so why do you go into a debate with the Orthodox using arguments against Protestants?

Quote

I don't find spiritual truth in death, murder, genocide, or even the invention of a food chain that rips each-other apart for food to at all be appealing.

That's because you are not a Bronze Age desert barbarian with a childlike mind. While these tales and fables may seem disturbing to you--and rightly so (I'd be more disturbed if they did NOT disturb you)--they may have been seen as glorious to the original people they were written to who lived in the desert nigh 5,000 or so years ago. I find it funny that you had an orgasm for information theory earlier, yet failed to realize this. The ultimate spiritual truth of the Bible is still the same--however, the best way to express it and get it "through" to people will vary because not all people are the same. What's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Being that humanity has attained a higher level of understanding since the Bronze Age, we now no longer need these violent, disturbing tales to get the spiritual message across to us, but can skip right to the spiritual message itself.

Quote

The spiritual contradictions of the bible are equally apart of the problem for me.

There are only spiritual contradictions when you read them without the guidance of the Church. In fact, I would be more disturbed if you didn't find any spiritual contradictions in reading the Bible without the Church.

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Nope. It would only state that Pascal had an agenda. Whether or not the logic used in the wager is true or not depends solely on our critical analysis of the logic--not on whether Pascal had an intention to use it in a manipulative way or not.

Quote

The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options.

Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. This simple premise is the foundation of Pascal's Wager. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Pascal's further arguments about what this entails--I think that he did in fact get it wrong and overemphasized the benefits if God exists and ignored several of the cons if we go on worshipping Him even though He doesn't exist--but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.

Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. [. . .] but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.

I wish you were really wealthy and like to gamble and lived right next door to me.

Nope. It would only state that Pascal had an agenda. Whether or not the logic used in the wager is true or not depends solely on our critical analysis of the logic--not on whether Pascal had an intention to use it in a manipulative way or not.

Quote

The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options.

Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. This simple premise is the foundation of Pascal's Wager. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Pascal's further arguments about what this entails--I think that he did in fact get it wrong and overemphasized the benefits if God exists and ignored several of the cons if we go on worshipping Him even though He doesn't exist--but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.

Nope. It would only state that Pascal had an agenda. Whether or not the logic used in the wager is true or not depends solely on our critical analysis of the logic--not on whether Pascal had an intention to use it in a manipulative way or not.

Quote

The wager is the assumption of two theoretical options when there are an untold number of theoretical options.

Either the God of Christianity exists or He does not exist, a 50/50 chance, the law of the excluded middle. There are no "other options", either He exists or He does not exist. This simple premise is the foundation of Pascal's Wager. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Pascal's further arguments about what this entails--I think that he did in fact get it wrong and overemphasized the benefits if God exists and ignored several of the cons if we go on worshipping Him even though He doesn't exist--but this simple premise--either the Christian God exists or does not exist--are the only two 50/50 options there are in regards to the topic.

Two options does not mean a 50/50 chance.

Indeed. I think James should maybe try playing the lottery. I mean he can only either win or not win - must be a 50/50 chance of winning

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Pascals wager is silly.. You would have to then assume 50/50 that the Pixie fairy lords are the true GODS and that yours is a false idol... Here you are now running the risk of eternal torture of the Pixie lords if you continue to worship this false Idol. However, everyone knows the Pascal wager is essentially nonsense.

Now concerning the existence of Jesus is rather a fun game considering there is no contemporary record of his existence.. But it goes much deeper than that considering much of what Jesus has said has come from Pagan philosophers that existed during and before his time.. It's even more amusing that it's entirely pagan in origin. What's more interesting is that Christianity really had nothing to do with Yahwism as it pretty much exploited that religious movement to espouse their cult around a Sun GOD.. Basically Christianity essentially began regarding a supposed prophet of Yahweh, and now it's a religious movement to try and usurp and equate Yahweh to Jesus. Both the Jews and the House of Yahweh, and even Islam will attest to this issue. And we all know that for anyone to claim a trinity in the bible they have to quote mine the bible and make erroneous use of the forged verse in John 5.. And a trinity that makes no coherent sense when you actually try to apply it in other sections of the bible such as Acts, or Genesis.. The other big mistake is Christians thinking the use of the term "Messiah" magically means Jesus when does not. Worse yet, the Christians would need to explain why Immanuel was actually the foretold to be "Messiah" to which would be related to the Pagan mythology of the EL pantheon..

And it gets worse than that because the origins of Yahweh most likely came from the Eyptian and Sumerian moon GOD's "Sin" and "Yah".. Mt Sinai means "Moon Mountain", and Hallelujah (yah) doesn't just mean "praise Yahweh /Jah", it translates to "praise the moon GOD"

Quote

One of the false gods the Jews worshipped was Yah. This pagan idol has its roots in Babylon and in Egypt. This is the lunar or moon god. In Babylon the moon god is called "Ia" or Ya. It has both a female and a male identity. In Egypt the Babylonian female "Ia or Ya" was changed into a male god and the female god was named "shua" and made the sky god. When a person then combines these forms into Iashua or Yahshua they have made the moon god the sky god. This Babylonian/Egypt deity is also called Baal throughout the Scriptures. The Jews did worshiped the moon god when they apostated into idolatry from the true God Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (Elohim/Adonai). Look up the word moon in Hebrew and it is "yareah" which is the same as "Yahweh." Modern Hebrew spells it different now to distort the real identity of their ancient Yah god. They now spell it "yareach." The Yah moon god remains controversial, but the evidence of the Jewish god Yah as the same god as the Babylonian god "Ia-ya" and or the Egyptian moon god Yah is pretty robust.

And of course through the process of Usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, their Moon Mountain GOD was likely a Volcano GOD of War, or became one through the process of usurping as you can really get into here..

Hence the GOD of Abraham was not Yahweh, it was the Amorite GOD Shaddai to which was also referred to as the usurper and equated to EL of the Canaanite Pantheon. Yahweh's roots do not appear to involve the Canaanite pantheon, especially when EL, El Elyon, and El Shaddai are Canaanite and Amorite deities. It's likely the Shasu of Yahweh were likely the evicted Hyksos and brought their moon GOD with them.. and that EL Elyon was only ever attested to the El Pantheon in regards to EL and his son Ba'al.. And no, "EL" was not ever a generic term for "GOD" in that era..It only became so after Yahwists usurped the Canaanite pantheon, or the GOD "EL". And ba'al gives you a clue in how Yahweh gets equated and introduced into the Pantheon as one of the sons of EL. What's even more interesting is that if you read the story of the battle of Yam vs Ba'al, it's rather funny how Yahweh plays the role of Yam and usurps ba'al by destroying him giving Yahweh's hatred for Ba'al in the bible. However, with the exception that the story ends with Yahweh winning and taking the thrown.. Hence, in usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, it's a clever play into the El Pantheon mythology and stories.. Lots of clever use of usurping going on back in those ancient times to which we see happening today with Christianity now trying to do the same thing with Yahweh..

In all truth, Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of usurped pagan oral traditions, religions, gods, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and culture.. It's why we can look at it and scoff at it's supposed validity even when concerning the "orthodox Church" to whom are essentially just Panentheists / pantheists using the Christian religion as a foundation for their beliefs.. It's like they really believe their version of ancient pagan mythology and their modern Panentheist approach to it would some how be any less mythical. :/

Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect....

Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect....

Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect....

The germinated serenity returns my colonel's shirt. Fermenting, for a moment, the zoo, you can marinate the filter with a protruding habit. Still, parallel blankets match a sampling of giggling torsos.

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Now concerning the existence of Jesus is rather a fun game considering there is no contemporary record of his existence.. But it goes much deeper than that considering much of what Jesus has said has come from Pagan philosophers that existed during and before his time.. It's even more amusing that it's entirely pagan in origin. What's more interesting is that Christianity really had nothing to do with Yahwism as it pretty much exploited that religious movement to espouse their cult around a Sun GOD.. Basically Christianity essentially began regarding a supposed prophet of Yahweh, and now it's a religious movement to try and usurp and equate Yahweh to Jesus. Both the Jews and the House of Yahweh, and even Islam will attest to this issue. And we all know that for anyone to claim a trinity in the bible they have to quote mine the bible and make erroneous use of the forged verse in John 5.. And a trinity that makes no coherent sense when you actually try to apply it in other sections of the bible such as Acts, or Genesis.. The other big mistake is Christians thinking the use of the term "Messiah" magically means Jesus when does not. Worse yet, the Christians would need to explain why Immanuel was actually the foretold to be "Messiah" to which would be related to the Pagan mythology of the EL pantheon..

And it gets worse than that because the origins of Yahweh most likely came from the Eyptian and Sumerian moon GOD's "Sin" and "Yah".. Mt Sinai means "Moon Mountain", and Hallelujah (yah) doesn't just mean "praise Yahweh /Jah", it translates to "praise the moon GOD"

Quote

One of the false gods the Jews worshipped was Yah. This pagan idol has its roots in Babylon and in Egypt. This is the lunar or moon god. In Babylon the moon god is called "Ia" or Ya. It has both a female and a male identity. In Egypt the Babylonian female "Ia or Ya" was changed into a male god and the female god was named "shua" and made the sky god. When a person then combines these forms into Iashua or Yahshua they have made the moon god the sky god. This Babylonian/Egypt deity is also called Baal throughout the Scriptures. The Jews did worshiped the moon god when they apostated into idolatry from the true God Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (Elohim/Adonai). Look up the word moon in Hebrew and it is "yareah" which is the same as "Yahweh." Modern Hebrew spells it different now to distort the real identity of their ancient Yah god. They now spell it "yareach." The Yah moon god remains controversial, but the evidence of the Jewish god Yah as the same god as the Babylonian god "Ia-ya" and or the Egyptian moon god Yah is pretty robust.

And of course through the process of Usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, their Moon Mountain GOD was likely a Volcano GOD of War, or became one through the process of usurping as you can really get into here..

Hence the GOD of Abraham was not Yahweh, it was the Amorite GOD Shaddai to which was also referred to as the usurper and equated to EL of the Canaanite Pantheon. Yahweh's roots do not appear to involve the Canaanite pantheon, especially when EL, El Elyon, and El Shaddai are Canaanite and Amorite deities. It's likely the Shasu of Yahweh were likely the evicted Hyksos and brought their moon GOD with them.. and that EL Elyon was only ever attested to the El Pantheon in regards to EL and his son Ba'al.. And no, "EL" was not ever a generic term for "GOD" in that era..It only became so after Yahwists usurped the Canaanite pantheon, or the GOD "EL". And ba'al gives you a clue in how Yahweh gets equated and introduced into the Pantheon as one of the sons of EL. What's even more interesting is that if you read the story of the battle of Yam vs Ba'al, it's rather funny how Yahweh plays the role of Yam and usurps ba'al by destroying him giving Yahweh's hatred for Ba'al in the bible. However, with the exception that the story ends with Yahweh winning and taking the thrown.. Hence, in usurping the Canaanite Pantheon, it's a clever play into the El Pantheon mythology and stories.. Lots of clever use of usurping going on back in those ancient times to which we see happening today with Christianity now trying to do the same thing with Yahweh..

In all truth, Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of usurped pagan oral traditions, religions, gods, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and culture.. It's why we can look at it and scoff at it's supposed validity even when concerning the "orthodox Church" to whom are essentially just Panentheists / pantheists using the Christian religion as a foundation for their beliefs.. It's like they really believe their version of ancient pagan mythology and their modern Panentheist approach to it would some how be any less mythical. :/

I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes: someone has actually made the Jehovah Witnesses look rational and well thought out.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Pascals wager is silly.. You would have to then assume 50/50 that the Pixie fairy lords are the true GODS and that yours is a false idol... Here you are now running the risk of eternal torture of the Pixie lords if you continue to worship this false Idol. However, everyone knows the Pascal wager is essentially nonsense.

Yeah, except I actually have citations and links in my posts, and in my posted articles that back me up. But I am not surprised at that blanketed statement / response. I can go much deeper into the subject btw concerning Jesus himself. But those two articles I posted are well supported and do go over the shasu, Abraham, and many other issues.. Most of you don't get how intertwined that region of the world was.. I will come back later tonight and provide a lot of information regarding the origins of the Jesus Christ and where much of that comes from.. And much of that deals with Egyptian mythology... Not entirely, but a good chunk of it does. And I am not talking about the common debunked parallels you might be thinking of as I understand very well that Christianity is a mixed mutt of various Pagan beliefs ect....

The germinated serenity returns my colonel's shirt. Fermenting, for a moment, the zoo, you can marinate the filter with a protruding habit. Still, parallel blankets match a sampling of giggling torsos.

This is an interesting thought however I would like to see some citation on this.

I would also like to point out to give the director a serpent deflector, a mudrat detector, a ribbon reflector, a cushion convector, a picture of nectar, a viral dissector, a hormone collector. Also you gotta set the gearshift to the high gear of your soul and run like an atelope, out of control.

In all truth, Christianity is essentially a mixed mutt of usurped pagan oral traditions, religions, gods, beliefs, rituals, philosophy, and culture.. It's why we can look at it and scoff at it's supposed validity even when concerning the "orthodox Church" to whom are essentially just Panentheists / pantheists using the Christian religion as a foundation for their beliefs

Well, when christianity has some "pagan" elements, that doesn't mean automatically that it used it for his religion. So you wish that the truth religion should be free from pagan elements? You can never find such a religion! The pagan culture before Christ was born, was so manifold and large, that you cannot wish: "I'll believe in God, if he gives me a religion which is free of pagan stuff!". nope. Christianity has some elements, which are similiar to pagan culture, but that doesn't mean that they inherited it.

I wouldn't believe it unless I saw it with my own eyes: someone has actually made the Jehovah Witnesses look rational and well thought out.

That would be quite the Irony of a statement on this board.. However, the information I provided is cited to which includes the Hieroglyphic Dictionary.. Whether people can deal with that is up to them... But the next time you yell out Hallelujah , or Halleluyah, be sure to remember what it actually means. However we aren't on board where anyone really cares about the facts concerning the history of the Christian religion, or realize that it is entirely of Pagan origin.. You aren't using the names El Elyon, El, or EL Shaddai for no reason, and you would have to be severely woeful in ignorance to think it's not Pagan.. But hey, you can believe whatever you want to believe.. But as one has said here, facts don't change regardless what you believe..

And I don't see anyone providing any real rebuttal, you can go look those up if you need to. Heck here's a link concerning Mount Sinai:

It is evident that, long before the promulgation of the Law, Mount Sinai was one of the sacred places in which one of the local Semitic divinities had been worshiped. This is clearly indicated in Ex. iii. 5: the ground was holy, for it was Yhwh's special dwelling-place. The expression "and brought you unto myself" (Ex. xix. 4) means that Yhwh brought the Israelites to His mountain. The two names of Sinai and Horeb, meaning respectively "moon" and "sun,"

Horeb is thought to mean glowing/heat, which seems to be a reference to the sun, while Sinai may have derived from the name of Sin, the Sumerian deity of the moon,[2][3] and thus Sinai and Horeb would be the mountain of the moon and sun, respectively.[2]

Which fits pretty well with a volcano Mountain GOD even if the deities Yah and Sin were originally moon GOD's from the Egyptians and the Sumerians. You can reference this here:

Quote

(Akkadian: Su'en, Sîn) or Nanna (Sumerian: DŠEŠ.KI, DNANNA) was the god of the moon in the Mesopotamian mythology of Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia. Nanna is a Sumerian deity, the son of Enlil and Ninlil, and became identified with Semitic Sin. The two chief seats of Nanna's/Sin's worship were Ur in the south of Mesopotamia and Harran in the north.

(mownt ssi' nay i) Mountain in the south central part of a peninsula in the northwestern end of Arabia. God made many significant revelations of Himself and His purposes to Israel there. The meaning of the name is unclear; but it probably means “shining” and was likely derived from the word sin, a Babylonian moon god. The suggestion that it means “clayey” does not in any way fit the nature of the terrain.

You add all this evidence up and it's pretty damn clear.. Even the Sinai dessert is likely named after the Sumerian moon god "Sin" as "Sin" is entirely Sumerian in origin.. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and the Akkadians took the word Suen and transformed it into the word Sin as their favorite name for the Moon-God. As Prof. Potts pointed out, "Sin is a name essentially Sumerian in origin which had been borrowed by the Semites. "

In ancient Syria and Canna, the Moon-god Sin was usually represented by the moon in its crescent phase. At times the full moon was placed inside the crescent moon to emphasize all the phases of the moon. The sun-goddess was the wife of Sin and the stars were their daughters. For example, Istar was a daughter of Sin. Sacrifices to the Moon-god are described in the Pas Shamra texts. In the Ugaritic texts, the Moon-god was sometimes called Kusuh. In Persia, as well as in Egypt, the Moon-god is depicted on wall murals and on the heads of statues. He was the Judge of men and gods. The Old Testament constantly rebuked the worship of the Moon-god (see: Deut. 4:19;17:3; II Kngs. 21:3,5; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; 19:13; Zeph. 1:5, etc.) When Israel fell into idolatry, it was usually the cult of the Moon-god. As a matter of fact, everywhere in the ancient world, the symbol of the crescent moon can be found on seal impressions, steles, pottery, amulets, clay tablets, cylinders, weights, earrings, necklaces, wall murals, etc. In Tell-el-Obeid, a copper calf was found with a crescent moon on its forehead.

Quote

And we even find the same connection in Islam:

Quote

The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Prof. Coon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being."

It gets much more obvious when you also note that the Isrealites worshiped the image of the Golden Calf.. To which of course, and I quote someone else here:

Quote

The golden calf was a common Near Eastern symbol of the moon god. In the Bible, we see the Israelites worshipping the golden calf during the Exodus, then next during the reign of Jeroboam, the first king of the northern Hebrew kingdom. Although few references have survived in the Bible, the moon god was clearly an important part of ancient Israelite culture.

And here:

Quote

According to the Hebrew Bible, the golden calf (עֵגֶּל הַזָהָב ‘ēggel hazâhâḇ) was an idol (a cult image) made by Aaron to satisfy the Israelites during Moses' absence, when he went up to Mount Sinai. The calf was intended to be a physical representation of the God of Israel, and therefore was doubly wrong for involving Israel in idolatry and for ascribing physicality to God.

In Hebrew, the incident is known as ḥēṭ’ ha‘ēggel (חֵטְא הַעֵגֶּל) or "The Sin of the Calf". It is first mentioned in Exodus 32:4

So its without a doubt that Yahweh originates from the Sumerian and Egyptian Moon GOD's.. And equated to Ba'al in regards to the Babylonian, and as one of the Sons of EL.. In fact we can see this directly when Yahweh is being equated to El Elyon to which is attested to Ba'al and EL of the Canaanite Pantheon.. And we know now that the Israelites and the Canaanites were the same people and that Yahwism was simply a pagan monotheistic movement intended to usurp the entire Pantheon into one GOD.. Hence the whole conflict was essentially Pagan monotheism vs Pagan Polytheism. And we can see Yahweh being equated to El Elyon quite clearly here:

From the dead sea scrolls:

Quote

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

This was of course edited to what you find in the duet:

Quote

Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

"When the Most High (EL ELyon)(Either EL or Ba'al) divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel EL. For the LORD’s (Yahweh's) portion is His people; Jacob is the place of His inheritance."

I fixed it so you can see where it was edited..And is further supported by:

Hence translated as: "son of EL" as this Ugarit Canaanite text (KTU 1.1IV 14) shows: sm . bny . yw . ilt: "The name of the son of god, Yahweh."

This is further supported in the Psalms:

Quote

Psalm 82:1:

"Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of EL, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength."

Psalm 89:6:

"For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh"

And supported here as well to where Yahweh stands in a council of GODs in Psalms:

Quote

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

1God presides in the great assembly;

he gives judgment among the “gods”:

2“How long will you defend the unjust

and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

3Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

4Rescue the weak and needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5“They know nothing, they understand nothing.

They walk about in darkness;

all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6“I said, ‘You are “gods”;

you are all sons of the Most High.’

7But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler.”

8Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

for all the nations are your inheritance.

You can also see the Threat Yahweh makes to the assembly of GOD's in Psalms to over throw the throne and be claimed King, and the GOD MOST HIGH. And this assembly of the GOD's can still be found in Genesis 1:26 below, and during Yam's and Ba'als conflict:

Quote

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them crule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

And just so you know.. Israel orginally had nothing to do with "Yahweh".. Israel has to do specifically with the Canaanite GOD "EL"..

Quote

The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage, to refer to the biblical Kingdom of Israel or the entire Jewish nation.[27] According to the Hebrew Bible the name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ Israēl; "struggle with "EL"[28])

It's not struggle with Yahweh, it's struggle with "El".. And they didn't use EL's name in generic form, and nor would they name their city using a generic name.. Even Adon is attestested to "EL"...

Quote

*In Canaanite (Ugaritic) tradition, ʾadn ilm, literally "lord of gods" is an epithet of El* Hebrew tradition makes Adon "lord" or Adonai "my lord" an epithet of the God of Israel, depicted as the chief antagonist of "the Ba`als" in the Tanakh.

Also:

refers to El, Mardikh, Yaqar or Yarikh.[3][4] ʾAdn ʾilm (meaning "the Lord of Gods") also appears in the texts to refer to El, and when Yam is described in at being at the height of his power, he is proclaimed ʾadn or "lord (of the gods).[4]

Ugarit family households were modeled after the structure of the divine world, each headed by an ʾadn (meaning in this context "master" or "patron"). Generally, this was the patriarch of the family and there may be some relation between ʾadn and the Ugarit word for "father", ʾad.[5]

And anyone that thinks that Christianity doesn't have a clear foundation of Pagan mythology is simply very ignorant of the history behind it.. All Christianity is, is a modern version of , and a mixed breed of Pagan mythology, and I didn't even have to go into the Egyptian aspects from which Christianity takes a lot from, especially the Coptics to which had a lot to do with the evolution of Christianity. And if you need a more obvious in the face examples, pictures are worth a thousand words:

Also, if you need even more evidence of the fact of yahweh's moon GOD origins and Israelite worshiping of this moon GOD, You can also look note this:

Quote

Khirbet Kerak (Arabic: Khirbet al-Karak, "the ruins of the castle") or Beth Yerah (Hebrew: בית ירח , "House of the Moon (god)") is a tell located on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee in modern day Israel.

Early Bronze Age (3300/3500-2200 BCE) - The 2009 discovery at the tell of a stone palette with Egyptian motifs, including an ankh,[9] points to trade/political relations with the First dynasty of Egypt, at approximately 3000 BCE.[10][11] Excavators have identified four levels of occupation from the Early Bronze Age (EB). Architectural development shows the procession from (sometimes oval) pit dwellings (I) to mud-brick (II), to basalt foundations with mud-brick (III), and then on to basalt structures (IV), over approximately 1000 years. The basalt houses belong to the same phase as the Khirbet al-Kerak pottery, dated to the Early Bronze Age III. From the earliest phases, the settlement was protected from the south and west by a city wall (the north and east facing the Sea of Galilee). The wall consisted of three connecting parallel walls, forming a massive wall, 25 feet (7.6 m) thick, built of mud-bricks. The gate was on the south and was built of basalt.[12] Evidence of an urban, orthogonal layout was found, dating to the EB II,[13] supporting the claim that the city was one of the regional urban centers of the period.[14]

Bet Yerah

Beth Yerah means "House of the Moon (god)".[16] Though it is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible or other Bronze or Iron Age sources,[2] the name preserves part of the Canaanite toponym of Ablm (Heb. Abel), "the city/fort (qrt) of his-majesty Yarih" (also Ablm-bt-Yrh) which is mentioned in the 14th century BCE Epic of Aqht and is thought to be a reference to the Early Bronze Age structure extant at Khirbet Kerak.[17]

The name Bet Yerah has generally been accepted and applied to the site of Khirbet Kerak, though the evidence for its being located there is circumstantial.[18] Established in the Hellenistic period (c. 4th century BCE)

During the Roman period, a fortress was built there and the place became known and named for this feature.[2] The Jerusalem Talmud mentions Bet Yerah as sitting alongside Sinnabri (al-Sinnabra), describing both as walled cities,[1][3][4] but also uses the name Kerakh to refer to Bet Yerah.[2]

In Greek sources the name is transcribed as Sennabris. The name stems from Sinn, the Mesopotamian moon god. During this period, like many ancient cities in the region, it was given a Greek name, Philoteria, by Ptolemy II Philadelphus for his sister, as indicated by remains dating to the Ptolemaic rule (3rd century BCE). - Rafi Greenberg.

And like the Jews, they would see Christianity worshiping a false idol, or a prophet of Yahweh wrongly as an Idol, or as Yahweh.. And I would actually agree with them here.. Christ is not Yahweh anymore than why Yahweh was Not "EL", "El ELyon", or more importantly "El Shadai".. Exodus 6:3 is only seen really as an attempt to equate Yahweh to them by the Yahwist monotheistic cult movement. This is how usurping works, and has been done for centuries... My second article even touches up on that subject regarding the Sumerian GODs ect..

If possible, it would be nice to have fairly concise replies.Thank you guys.

Because I have met Him. You, on the other hand, I have not.

I wasn't in that conversation, but If this is about supposedly meeting GOD, I call nonsense and just another appeal to ignorance / absolute negative.. :/ Testimonials really aren't worth anything in terms of argument or evidence. But if this was a claim about meeting god, well you are free to believe that, but I doubt very much you could substantiate that.. It would be curious to tell us how you made a positive Identification.. Though giving the bible's description, just going to go watch an erupting volcano would suffice to fit perfectly in as the "Moon Mountain" the abode of this moon GOD that is essentially a Volcano deity.. But if this wasn't about meeting GOD, just disregard this post..

That's your own problem as well as the entire problem with empirical Scholasticism; you reduce all evidence down to that which could be measured in a test-tube, when in reality, history and witnesses are just as much evidence as what you could measure in a test-tube. Rather than promoting knowledge, you butcher knowledge by reducing it down to a single aspect and ignoring all of the other elements of knowledge and evidence. It would be like a court-of-law rejecting the testimonies of witnesses and all other forms of evidence and just accepting the forensic element.

Quote

But if this was a claim about meeting god, well you are free to believe that, but I doubt very much you could substantiate that..

Jumping to premature conclusions much eh? Rejecting the man before he even makes his testimony?

Quote

It would be curious to tell us how you made a positive Identification

You wouldn't understand unless you prepared yourself for it. Meeting and/or experiencing God is not something that everyone can experience at any time. If you were to experience Him in an unworthy state, it would literally be Hell. You must prepare yourself first, live the life of the Church, and then hope to behold God. I would suggest following Fr. Thomas Hopko's ten step challenge. But, if you are not willing to make the initial effort, then I am afraid you will not experience anything. And that is because of His mercy upon you--so that you do not experience Hellish pain from His presence in an unworthy state.

I'm not a history buff so I won't comment on your historical hypothesis mr Jackal, but it may be worth to mention to you that most of your arguments are somewhat irrelevent because being Orthodox Christians, we use the Greek Septuagint Old Testament, not the Masoretic texts. Most of your arguments seem to be centered around Hebrewic dialects and documents--which we do not use.

Yes, James, I do have to agree with these sentiments. No one had posted on this thread for close to two years. Why the need to wake the sleeping dragon (i.e., TheJackel) by replying to him so long after he last posted here? Couldn't you have just let this thread stay dead?